Old Calvinism is Now the New Calvinism

“Calvinism is back,” so says David Van Biema in the March 22, 2009 issue of Time magazine. Calvinism is listed as one of “10 ideas changing the world Right now.” It’s third on the list. When most people hear the word “Calvinism,” they bite down only on the gristle of predestination and then spit out the whole piece of meat. There is much more to Calvinism that is obscured by the misapplied aversion to particular redemption. As a student at Reformed Theological Seminary in the 1970s, I was taught that certain cultural applications flowed from a consistent application of Calvinism. Calvinism is synonymous with a comprehensive biblical world-and-life view. Simply put, I was told that the Bible applies to every area of life. To be a Calvinist is to make biblical application to issues beyond personal salvation (Heb. 5:11–14).

I point to Scripture. I realize my interpretation of Scripture may at times be flawed. Nevertheless, Scripture is the foundation of my belief and it is the sieve through which I sift other beliefs.

Mathison (and apparently your) ‘s play on words does not reflect our belief either. It is as big of a straw man as the ones you have been jousting at all along. I refuse to allow you to define what I think or believe for you botch it up, deliberately I believe.

I have stated there is nothing wrong with creeds in their place. You have somehow twisted this into meaning something else. I would submit that you don’t know sola scriptura yourself considering your chief source for anything you have said on this thread is some extra-biblical source.

What makes Mathison any more authoritative than anyone else? He has a theological degree? So do I. He can understand a little Greek or Hebrew, so can I. He is no more authoritative Scripturally speaking than any other Christian - and divorced from the sifting of Scripture, his words are empty and frankly do not persuade.

What your post does do,however, is underscores my belief that Topcat indeed puts non-Scriptural authorities on an even plane with Scripture. Calvin would roll over in his grave.

I can articulate it from a biblical standpoint, and have done so earlier in the thread.

There is nothing wrong with a Creed as long as it is understood that that Creed is not authoritative absent the Scriptural backing.

I have stated earlier that if a Statement of Faith is just a way to pull together various BIBLICAL doctrines in a convenient way - I have no problem with it. It’s when it becomes more than that that I have a problem with it.

The scholars you have quoted, and you yourself, appear to raise it higher than just an organizational device for what is already found in Scripture. I have a problem with that, and I believe the Reformers would too. They were not creating new Scripture. They were articulating what was already there.

There is nothing wrong with a Creed as long as it is understood that that Creed is not authoritative absent the Scriptural backing.

Is that view of alcohol not a personal creed? Would it hold have authority in your life, admitting that you think it is based on the Word of God.

Let me see if I can understand your position now:

Again, as long as the Creed is Scriptural, I have no issue in using it to organize key doctrines of the Christian faith. It is when that creed or confession or statement of faith is elevated as some authoritative document that there is an issue.

There is nothing wrong with a Creed as long as it is understood that that Creed is not authoritative absent the Scriptural backing.

The first statement seems to indicate that creeds and confession have no authoritative place in the Church, but the second seems to offer that possibility insofar as they are true to Scripture (which, BTW, is the position of the Reformation Churches).

Suppose a person comes to your confession-less church and says, “I believe the Bible teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manifestations of God,” and that person can point to a few verses that he says demonstrate that view. What does a confession-less church do with the person that does justice to his liberty of conscience?

Is your personal creed authoritative in your life? IOW, do you take action in your personal life based on what you believe the Bible teaches? E.g., suppose you believe the Bible teaches that abstinence from beverage alcohol is required by believers. Do you then believe it would be a sin for you to drink beverage alcohol socially? Would you believe it is a sin for everyone?
Irrelevant line of inquiry. Authority is not instilled based upon belief. Authority emanates from God Himself. I am not God and neither are you and neither is the Magisterium. If the Holy Spirit taught me something about Scripture was true then that teaching would be authoritative. I can hear now, how do you know the Holy Spirit teaches you? First, Scripture says He does. Second, you have to test the spirits as Scripture says to. If you see what is being taught is in conflict with Scripture, then it is not the Holy Spirit teaching You.

Is that view of alcohol not a personal creed?
Sure. It is a personal creed. But, it is not looked at in the same way Scripture is looked at. My opinion and my beliefs can be in error. God's Word can not be. I can cherry pick Scripture to support my belief, but that isn't the way Scripture works. The interpretive framework for Scripture is found within Scripture itself. You see several points where the apostles or Christ show the harmony of the Scriptures on a certain aspect - the prophecies concerning Christ's first coming for example. In the same respect, when you look at Scripture you see what Scripture as a whole says about a subject and then, by faith, accept that the Holy Spirit will guide You into truth in that matter. I can look at some of the ancient creeds and see a harmony with Scripture and therefore have no problem with their content per se. Other creeds conflict with Scripture. A creed, confession, or statement of faith simply are not authoritative in and of themselves. Absent Scriptural backing, they are words on paper.

Irrelevant line of inquiry. Authority is not instilled based upon belief. Authority emanates from God Himself.

How so? The Bible says that whatever is not of faith is sin. You must make judgment calls all the time based on your personal interpretation of that the Bible says. If it does not conform to the Bible (as seen through your personal creed), then it is sin. And you are forced to act on those interpretations. Does not your personal creed become an authority for you?

Sure. It is a personal creed. But, it is not looked at in the same way Scripture is looked at.

But you act on it, therefore it has authority to you. It may not to anyone else, but it does to you.

Most dispensationalists don't see two promises of salvation either. It has always been salvation by grace through faith alone.

Dispensationalists keep saying that.

So, it would appear that you are mistaken in what you think we believe.

Y'all keep saying that, too. Look, I was saved while attending a Christian Church (CoC). I went to a Christian (CoC) Bible College. While there, I was a youth minister at a Nazarene church. I was, in fact, dispie through and through, and pretty hardcore about it, too. In fact, I organized and sponsored a "Tribulation House" haunted house thing at one of the local churches. I'm more than fairly well versed in dispensational eschatology and, by extension, the dispensational theology (because it naturally develops a different theology than Reformed covenant theology).

Y'all keep saying you don't see two promises... and then...

...They [Israel] have specific promises exclusive to them - namely the land. Salvifically, they are saved no different than we are.

That's two promises. Covenant theology states that the land promise is the promise of salvation. Dispensation theology divides the promise of God into two promises, one for salvation and the other for the nation state of Israel.

It is an arrogant statement and not really funny. It is mean spirited and should be avoided.

Arrogant? No. Funny? No intent on being funny, so I'm glad it wasn't taken as such. Avoided? I don't make a habit of avoiding the truth. Take or leave it, "no creed but Christ" is a creed.

I am finding this conversation interesting as you seem to elevate the church above Scripture. I would have worded this statement differently. Does your church teach inerrancy?

Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt.... because I was ambiguous when I said

However, they [confessions and creeds] are explanations of what we believe and sound theology, and affirmations of historic Christianity and unity between believers past, present, and future.

They are subservient to Scripture, and so they are a statement of Biblical Doctrine that help to ensure that we aren't out there making up our own doctrine, going all "post-modern" on the Word.

And, yes, my church teaches inerrancy of Scripture. Have you ever even read the London Baptist Confession? Sheesh.

Again, an almost Catholic-like devotion to the teaching of the church as opposed to Scripture. The cry of the reformers was Sola Scriptura, not Sola Ecclesia.

You seem unfamiliar with Sola Scriptura. It is one of the five Solas of the reformation. The same Reformers that affirmed Sola Scriptura as a doctrine wrote and affirmed the confessions and used and affirmed the creeds. Ever read what Calvin thought of Creeds

When in the Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God, including in the number even those who have departed this life.

To say "you must believe as this creed says" puts authority in a man made document.

Every baptism that I've seen at a Southern Baptist Church starts with this confession:

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and do you accept Him now as your Lord and Savior?

Does that put authority in a man-made creed (it is a creed)? No, of course not. But to be baptized, one needs to at least affirm that much, yes?

I'll get to the rest later, gotta go.

That God uses the church to teach does not negate that the actually understanding comes from the spirit-filled life. Those that walk according to the Spirit are taught by the Spirit. He can use Scripture. He can use the church. But it is His work, not the church's.

You make it sound like it's an either/or situation. It's not.

I see. Guess the Reformers are in the same boat then.

A silly argument. You took my sentence out of the context of the rest of my point, which you insufficiently answered with this:

You show no respect for our ability to do our own research. I am a dispensationalist because I see it is scripture, not because Clarence Larkin taught it.

But you didn't come up with the dispensations on your own. You didn't read the Bible from cover to cover and say, "Hey! This is how God has dispensed His Grace to His Chosen people over the years! This is how He has fulfilled His promises! Wow! This is how God has revealed His millenial kingdom! Here is the rapture and here is how and when it's going to happen!"

The point is, neither you nor any other dispensationalist make up dispensationalism on your own. You affirm what you learn from dispensational scholars as you see fit. If not, if you did it all on your own, you ought to write a book.

There is no doubt what our church believes and teaches. It is Calvinistic but evangelistic.

A simple statement that makes me wonder if you do know what your church believes and teaches, because it's obvious you don't know Calvinism. "Calvinistic but evangelistic" makes no sense. Calvinism is evangelistic.

Try this - argue the Scripture with me. I don't look to those folks as authorities for my belief. So why would you point to them?

So, we're arguing with a privately held interpretation that may or may not be in tune with any church teachings. OK, fine, I can do that, but do me a favor... start the conversation. You haven't wrote a book yet (that I know of) to refer to.

Not in the sense Scripture is an authority.

Scripture is right whether I believe it or not.

I may believe something and be wrong.

Scripture is never wrong. It is the Ultimate Authority by which all else is judged, including personal belief. NOTHING is its equal short of the living Word of God. Nothing should be held to anywhere near that standard. The question should never be “do you believe what this creed says” but do you believe what Scripture says. A creed can organize those thoughts, but beyond that it is of little value. It has no real authority on its own. Anything authoritative it says MUST derive that authority by coming from the Word of God.

“Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?” Yep, The Athanasian Creed is foreign and sounds like something written out of a monastery, or maybe Gaul ...
That wasn’t the question. What’s in there that is not Scriptural?

It was the question. It appears you misread either the question or the answer. He asked "Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?” I answered, "Yep ..." Yep is slang for Yes.

Besides, were there no Christians in Gaul or monasteries 1500 years ago?

Negative question, thus the grammatical answer is "no."

Did they have not have access to the same Word of God. Granted, they could probably read it in the original language far better than you or me. Maybe that’s what makes it sound foreign.

Now that is an interesting question. I don't know with certainty what portions of what canon they had in Gaul in the 5th Century. I figure they had the Latin Vulgate. That is not what I was referring to in being "foreign." Rather, the whole tone of the creed is foreign to the Bible, as we know it today. It is more of a polemic text. For example:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; . . .

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

I can't imagine any of the Jewish apostles writing like this. It sounds foreign to even the NT books. It is as if someone is having a thread war on FR. I daresay it even reminds me of Mormonism with its late addition to the canon ...

I suppose it fits the model of a Greek/Gentile synthesized religion based on Judaism.

Dispensationalists keep saying that.
And non-dispensationalists on Free Republic keep ignoring us.

Y'all keep saying that, too. Look, I was saved while attending a Christian Church (CoC). I went to a Christian (CoC) Bible College. While there, I was a youth minister at a Nazarene church. I was, in fact, dispie through and through, and pretty hardcore about it, too. In fact, I organized and sponsored a "Tribulation House" haunted house thing at one of the local churches. I'm more than fairly well versed in dispensational eschatology and, by extension, the dispensational theology (because it naturally develops a different theology than Reformed covenant theology).
Apparently not well versed enough. There are a few, like Hagee, that would lay out two ways of salvation. They are in the minority. Such is not a teaching of dispensationalism but a perversion of it.

Y'all keep saying you don't see two promises... and then...
I didn't say I don't see two promises. Regarding salvation, no, there aren't two promises. But salvation is not where God's blessings stop. Read your Bible. Israel has some promises that are hers that she will yet see.

That's two promises. Covenant theology states that the land promise is the promise of salvation. Dispensation theology divides the promise of God into two promises, one for salvation and the other for the nation state of Israel.
The land promise is the promise of salvation? Huh? That's a new one on me. Talk about eisegesis!!!!! That's not even eisegesis, that's making up stuff and pretending it is Scripture.

Arrogant? No. Funny? No intent on being funny, so I'm glad it wasn't taken as such. Avoided? I don't make a habit of avoiding the truth. Take or leave it, "no creed but Christ" is a creed.
Whatever you say. You are making fun of folks that Christ died for. Not funny and rather arrogant.

And, yes, my church teaches inerrancy of Scripture. Have you ever even read the London Baptist Confession? Sheesh.
Truthfully, not the whole thing. I have read certain parts of it, mainly regarding the doctrines of grace.
You seem unfamiliar with Sola Scriptura.
I am not. The reformers pointed to Scripture far more than a creed. On these threads, certain individuals do the opposite. Again, there is nothing bad about creeds per se - in their place (i.e., not treated as inspired Scripture). It is the elevation of Creeds or Confessions or Statements of faith to the level of Scripture that the issue arises. Of course, this statement which I have made several times is still being ignorred. Your group wants to argue against something I didn't state "i.e., creeds are BADDDDD". You also seem to want to define creed as "personal belief". Creeds have a much more complicated history than that as I'm sure you are aware. Not all creeds were good ones (defined as scriptural versus non-Scriptural), as I am sure you are also aware.

Me:That God uses the church to teach does not negate that the actually understanding comes from the spirit-filled life. Those that walk according to the Spirit are taught by the Spirit. He can use Scripture. He can use the church. But it is His work, not the church's.

Raynearhood: You make it sound like it's an either/or situation. It's not.

Uh, yes it is. Either it is the teaching of the Spirit or it is not. The Spirit can teach through the church, but the church can not hope to maintain solid doctrinal teaching without the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not truly understood outside of the Spirit's work. It is HIS work!

A silly argument.
I didn't think so. It just showed the absurdness of your point.

But you didn't come up with the dispensations on your own.
No. And truthfully, I am not sitting here stewing over how many dispensations there are. It is not central to my belief. I know that there was an age prior to Christ's coming where God interacted with man a little different. Salvation was the same, by grace through faith. But, you see God's revelation of Himself through the history of Israel as being a bit different than after the cross. After the cross, we have the New Testament Scriptures. We have the Holy Spirit left as Comforter and Teacher. His operations are just different. They will be different in the Tribulation still. Same plan of Salvation. Different modus operandi. Different still in the Millenium. And so on. The only way anyone ever got saved, however, was by grace through faith. That's the only way that anyone will ever be saved.

You didn't read the Bible from cover to cover and say, "Hey! This is how God has dispensed His Grace to His Chosen people over the years! This is how He has fulfilled His promises! Wow! This is how God has revealed His millenial kingdom! Here is the rapture and here is how and when it's going to happen!"
I could have. Someone did. After the Catholic church espoused Augustines point of view for so many centuries, someone saw that in Scripture. Non-dispensationalists like to think that this was also a new doctrine Darby made up. No. It is found in Scripture - the same Scripture that led to Luther's "discovery" of salvation by grace through faith after so many years of it being hidden. Nobody sat there and told Luther - you must believe this because the church says it. The church at the time was saying the opposite. The Holy Spirit taught Luther and He teaches us.

The point is, neither you nor any other dispensationalist make up dispensationalism on your own. You affirm what you learn from dispensational scholars as you see fit. If not, if you did it all on your own, you ought to write a book.
While I may affirm what someone says as Scriptural, I am a digger. I make sure of what I believe MYSELF through studying Scripture and I have rejected what several dispensational teachers have said when they stray from Scripture. There is no doubt what our church believes and teaches. It is Calvinistic but evangelistic. A simple statement that makes me wonder if you do know what your church believes and teaches, because it's obvious you don't know Calvinism. "Calvinistic but evangelistic" makes no sense. Calvinism is evangelistic. Try this - argue the Scripture with me. I don't look to those folks as authorities for my belief. So why would you point to them? So, we're arguing with a privately held interpretation that may or may not be in tune with any church teachings. OK, fine, I can do that, but do me a favor... start the conversation. You haven't wrote a book yet (that I know of) to refer to.

I didn't say I don't see two promises. Regarding salvation, no, there aren't two promises. But salvation is not where God's blessings stop. Read your Bible. Israel has some promises that are hers that she will yet see...

Nope.

The land promise is the promise of salvation? Huh? That's a new one on me. Talk about eisegesis!!!!! That's not even eisegesis, that's making up stuff and pretending it is Scripture.

Nope, again. Here's why, on both counts:

Hebrews 11:8-16, 32-40
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.

Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE. All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them...

...And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment.

They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

I don't have a personal interpretation. I don't just make it up as I go. If the forefathers of the faith lived as aliens in the promised land because they were looking forward a city with foundations made by God (Rev. 21:14-27), that is, a better country, a heavenly city... then why aren't all Christians looking back at the land promises as having been perfected, because God has provided something better than land that can't be attained apart from us (we, the saved by Christ)?

This, friend, isn't eschatology, this is theology.

The debate has been interesting but I will take my leave of it.

As will I, at least with you on this thread. It has been interesting. I leave you the final response if you would like to take it. Good night.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.